NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Shivalik Vihar Sites
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Jasbir Singh – Respondent
Review Application No.126 of 2020 in
RP/4377/2010
Decided on 7.10.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
“Remedy available under Act of 1986 cannot be allowed to be frustrated by filing frivolous and false civil and criminal cases.”

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 3 and 24-A : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 2(11) and 69] Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3 – Allotment of Flat – Delay in delivery of possession – Refund of amount deposited – Scope – Complainant booked a flat and paid full and final amount of Rs. 11 lakhs – Prosecution had failed to prove that allotment letters were fabricated documents – Company director was in habbit of cheating various consumers by collecting money from them and issuing such allotment letters, for which several criminal cases were lodged against him – Consumer is a dominus litus and has right to choose his forum – Remedy available under Act of 1986 cannot be allowed to be frustrated by filing frivolous and false criminal civil cases – Ending civil suit also ought to have been dismissed as time barred in view of legislative mandate under Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 – State Commission held not erred in directing the Director to refund the money as mentioned in allotment letter – Direction issued accordingly.

Held: We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as Civil Suit i.e. RT No. 845 of 07.11.2006/14.03.2007, is concerned, it was filed against Darshan Singh, Parmjeet Kaur Dhillon, Ajit Singh, Navdeep Singh, Deepak Rawat, Vicky, Ashok Saini, Ravinder Singh and Sukhbir Singh, in Civil Court Mohali, for restraining those persons to convert the blank stamp papers, blank papers, blank letter heads of Blue Sea Site Private Limited and White Sea Sites Private Ltd., on which signatures of Anil Kumar were allegedly obtained under coercion, into valuable security or agreement to sell, power of attorney or any other resolution on behalf of Anil Kumar. This suit was dismissed in default on 30.10.2010. The petitioners did not file any order; showing that the order dated 30.10.2010 was recalled. State Commission passed impugned order on 04.11.2010. On the date of order of State Commission no civil suit was pending.

Anil Kumar filed another civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 48 of 20.04.2017, against Jasbir Singh and Kuldeep Singh, concealing the material facts of filing Civil Suit i.e. RT No. 845 of 07.11.2006/ 14.03.2007 as well as criminal case, which resulted in acquittal. In this suit, services of summons were affected through publication and exparte decree was passed on 17.05.2019. On coming to know about the exparte decree, the complainants Jasbir Singh and Kuldeep Singh filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., on 28.01.2020, for setting aside exparte decree, dated 17.05.2019. The application could not be heard till today, due to Covid-19 and still pending.

Anil Kumar did not challenge the genuineness of his signature on allotment letter dated 06.03.2006, which contained his acknowledgement of receipt of Rs. 11 lakh. He took the plea that his signatures have been obtained on blank papers, during his abduction, which have been utilised for fabricating allotment letters. High Court, in its order dated 29.03.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal D-531 DB of 2015, has specifically held that the prosecution had failed to prove that allotment letters were fabricated documents. In such circumstances, State Commission has not committed any error in directing Anil Kumar to refund the money recovered from the complainant as mentioned in allotment letter. State Commission has also recorded finding that Anil Kumar was in habit of cheating various consumers by collecting money from them and issuing such allotment letters, for which several criminal cases were lodged against him. This finding has not been challenged at all. The argument that highly complicated issue of fact is involved in the complaint is not liable to be accepted.

By virtue of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is provided additional speedy and inexpensive remedy to approach Consumer Forum. The consumer is a dominus litis and has right to choose his forum. The remedy available under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be allowed to be frustrated by filing frivolous and false criminal and civil cases. Limitation Act, 1963, provides three years limitation, for a suit for cancellation of a document. Anil Kumar was contesting consumer complaints, since 2008 and had knowledge of allotment letters dated 06.03.2006, at least from the date of filing his written reply in the consumer complaints. Civil Suit No. 48 of 20.04.2017 was long barred by limitation and ought to have been dismissed as time barred in view of legislative mandate under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Issue of limitation is an issue of jurisdiction. Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to decree the suit and the exparte decree dated 17.05.2019, passed in Civil Suit No. 48 of 20.04.2017 is nullity. (Paras 9 to 12)